Receiving gifts always gave me stress. As a child, I was afraid of not being able to express my happiness at best in receiving a gift that I liked very much, just as I was afraid of not being able to hide my deep disappointment in discarding a gift that I did not like at all.

Although with age I improved a bit, even today I realize that learning to recognize and manage emotions is all but easy, especially when facing surprises: either these make us beat the heart trope strong or these leave us terribly disappointed. Of course, the unexpected is part of life and in the workplace is part of the day. Facing and solving the unexpected is part of the game, but how do we deal with those of the last minute, those we did not expect, those that are communicated to us just before the deadline when the time to make a decision is tight?

Personally, I hate this kind of surprises. I try to control the anger of the moment, to breathe deeply, to “visualize a happy place” but the practice of positive inner dialogue does not help me much. I hate these unforeseen events, especially if they were kept hidden until the end, perhaps because of the fear of being negatively evaluated in asking for help or for personal pride.

If there is a difficulty or uncertainty, I would prefer that these are raised immediately, so that these can be considered and resolved in ideal times and ways. A healthy confrontation with our colleagues, in which all people involved ask questions in case of doubts or misunderstandings, does not exonerate us from the burden of managing our personal emotions, but it is nevertheless the best condition to share ideas and find possible solutions. After all, problems are not secret, instead, these are just questions to be solved.

My first piggy bank was the plasticized miniature of a safe, with a stylized and rounded armored door. At the center, there were three cranks that had to be rotated to indicate the combination. Only then, turning the wheel, the three small bars would slide horizontally until it opened. On the back, the slot to insert the coins.

I was given as a present by my father, who repeated to me: “When you have few coins, drop these in the safe-box and you will have a good surprise in opening it one day”. I trusted him, I had the surprise, and not long ago I did the same gift to my children.

I find there is a strong similarity between the safe-box and people. After all, the two are not so different: it changes what lies inside, but the return, in proportion not always and necessarily linked to what has been stored, is assured. In our relationship with people close to us, instead of some coins, we “drop-in” precious knowledge, values and beliefs over a period of time that may vary depending on the kind of relationship that binds us and our mutual involvement.

People around us, in turn, being “people” and hence each one different from each other will show different degrees of reception and assimilation. They will then return to different ways and intensity, but this does not matter: if we are able to wait, they will return us something. We will always find part of what we have transferred if we invest energies in this process. The good thing is that, as well as the safe-box, opens only if we know the combination, people we have invested on will return to us what they have assimilated just if we know how to decipher their combination, putting them in the ideal conditions to express themselves freely.

So the question is: in our daily life do we seek different access keys or apply the same combination to all those around us? Do we transfer content in the same way or customize our communication to those around us? How are we willing to get in touch with each other?

We are all different individuals and if we want to receive from others the “surprise” that was discussed at the beginning, we must be able to decipher different combinations.

With his “Start with Why“, Simon Sinek has revealed that people do not buy what we do but why we do it. If the “Why” is defined by an inner motivation and the “What” is the resultant in terms of actions, the “How” is represented by behavioral values defining how we will develop what we do (The Golden Circle).

I am impressed by the importance of the “How”, which determines how we interact with others. Within an organization, it is essential to establish shared methods and rules so that all parts of the system are aligned and involved. Just with a common commitment, we will reach the “What” in a sustainable manner, although we should not underestimate the time factor: the “When”.

It is not enough to have clarity on how we implement what we believe, of equal importance, in fact, it is when we do it. There are circumstances where the organization is not culturally prepared to face a project, or instances when people are particularly stressed by a challenging assignment or even a time when the team could be demotivated due to organizational changes not yet digested.

The “How” and the “When” have in common that both depend on the interactions within the team and the attention that the leader pays to the dynamics around him. It follows that a good leader not only looks at how team members act among themselves but he is also wondering if that team is ready to face a new challenge.

If we use dysfunctional ways to the system or we start organizational change without asking ourselves whether the team has the energy and motivation to handle it, we run the risk to remain alone in the middle of a storm.

In both cases the leader has no choice. In the first one, he has to fully live the team’s shared values by detecting any dysfunctional behaviors. In the second case, however, he should observe the team ability and readiness, deciding (if the case) to postpone action for the better time.

Delegating is one of the most frequent challenges in the managerial world and, without doubt, a quality of good leaders. A common language is fundamental to make sure that who delegates communicate properly and that the content of the message is correctly understood by the partner.

Misunderstandings and performance below expectations are often due to the way the message is transferred and how it is delegated. It usually happens that the ideal alignment between leaders and their team is reached only after mid-long periods of collaboration.

By interacting over time, sharing content and ideas through the continuous exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages, people tune into a common language mode that clarifies their intents. It may happen that team members internalize and affirm an already existing language between them, for example, or that they generate a completely new one, characterized by their singularities. In this way, within the team, who delegates and who acts will speak the same language. This tuning maximizes the team’s potential and helps to build a gradual alignment between people involved. This results also positively in the way what delegated is accomplished.

How to be more effective in delegating while creating a common language? A good habit is to ask feedbacks on the content of what has been asked to do. Alignment may start with questions such as:

• “How do you prefer to approach this task?”
• “How do you picture the final result?”
• “Do you wish a brainstorming session before you go on with it?”

Questions such as these might disclose misunderstandings about the initial request, as well as misalignment on the actions to be taken, therefore offering precious opportunities to speed up the learning and the adoption of a common language, a team language.

If Herb Brooks had not persevered at the end of a friendly match in Norway, the U.S. men’s Olympic hockey squad would not have become a team and would not have won the Olympic Games in 1980 (video from the movie Miracle). But what made his persistence non-diabolical?

Herb Brooks did not persevere to prove the rightness of his thoughts, but rather to achieve a common goal. The drive of that particular way of training, on and off the field, was not his ego but his desire to trigger a common benefit on which all members of the team could count.

When we persist in repeating the same actions to achieve a result and these are related only to our ego, we are left alone to ourselves. But if we act with the intent of generating a common benefit, we will find followers ready to support us and the goal will be more easily achieved.

During training sessions for the Olympics, Brooks had several moments of friction with the team and faced unexpected issues until the end of the Games. In every situation he decided for the common good of the team and not for his own personal interest in winning the gold medal. The team got implicit messages in the ways of their leader and sticked with him.

Persevering is diabolical when tied to one’s ego but becomes heroic if aims for collective value.

Group dynamics are the daily challenge of every leader. In any organization people are the most important resource: bringing them to the utmost value is common desire for many. However what happens in teams is that each person has different predisposition to teamwork, and this can lead to results below expectations.

John Nash (The Game Theory) teaches mathematically that the best result is achieved when each group member does what is best for himself and, at the same time, for the group. In other words, maximum common value is achieved if, in addition to acting in their own interest, each individual also acts in the interests of others. Note, the maximum common value may be lower than the possible one, but it makes it reachable if compared to the uncertainty of the possible one.

At the same time, in business, when a person focuses just on his/her personal career he/she is not a team player and the team suffers. Likewise, if two team members focus solely on their personal interests, forgetting the common “good”, the result is a competition between two people at the expense of team goals.

Within a group, it is not always so intuitive to recognize that the best result (equilibrium point) is achieved when single and common interests are reached simultaneously. Indeed, for some, this may seem counterproductive.

Finally, the people factor adds to the Nash theorem an exponential effects variable. A team, focused towards the same goal for the common interest, does not only reach the point of balance, but an extraordinary point that lies beyond what algebraic formulas can demonstrate.

It follows that rationally explaining to a team how to interact for the common interest is not enough to lead it to extraordinary results. What you need is to inspire them. Your inner leadership skills are vital to talk to their hearts.

Among the many things I should learn from my kids there is their habit to say No.

No is the most common answer, uttered often in unison, to my requests. Simple: kids know what is important to them and what I ask distracts them from their priorities. After all, time is a finite resource and we have only 24 hours a day. Once used, we can no longer retrieve it. Often, however, when we help others to complete their “to do list” we don’t invest in our priorities.

Why is it so hard to say No? Because it can stir negative emotions making us feel guilty, selfish, lazy, disengaged. Being always available, on the opposite, is gratifying, making us feel useful or even indispensable.

When we answer Yes to others we should make sure we don’t say No to ourselves. I found these questions useful: what are my goals now? How do I use my time and direct my energies? What will be the consequences on my agenda if I answer yes to others?

I know it’s not easy to say No, especially at work. Often our Yes are tied to the expectations of others. Sometimes we just want to do too many things at the same time.

While it is true that a No said at the wrong time can be misunderstood or be perceived as a rejection, it is also true that often one of the healthiest things we can do for our lives is just answering No.

Use your imagination to suggests three hypothetical scenarios that could arise if today you say No:

What’s the worst thing that can happen?

What is the best thing that can happen?

What is the most probable thing that can happen?

Maybe we will discover that the world will go on despite our No. We will find that there is no need to sacrifice our identity to be “accepted” and that when we answer NO to requests, we should not even raise the tones for fear of not being heard.

It’s a matter of assertiveness, the ability to support our opinion and to express what we think transparently and effectively, without overpowering others. In this connection I report a text by Robert E. Alberti and Michael L. Emmons entitled “Your Perfect Right, a guide to assertive living” which I found very practical. A well-motivated No, perhaps together with smile, makes us feel better, more balanced and positive in building relationships.